Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83889 

2. Comments by interested persons in 

this proceeding are due no later than 

January 18, 2024. 

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the 

Commission appoints Nikki 

Brendemuehl to serve as an officer of 

the Commission (Public Representative) 

to represent the interests of the general 

public in this docket. 

4. The Secretary shall arrange for the 

publication of this Order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Erica A. Barker, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26393 Filed 11–30–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–OAR–2023–0406; FRL–10652–01– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AV97 

Removal of Affirmative Defense 

Provisions From the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for the Oil and Natural Gas Production 

Facility and Natural Gas Transmission 

and Storage Facility Source Categories 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing 

amendments to the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for the oil and gas industry issued under 

the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the EPA 

is proposing to remove the affirmative 

defense provisions of the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for both the Oil and Natural 

Gas Production source category and the 

Natural Gas Transmission and Storage 

source category. 

DATES: 

Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before January 16, 2024. 

Public hearing: If anyone contacts us 

requesting a public hearing on or before 

December 6, 2023, we will hold a virtual 

public hearing. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for information on 

requesting and registering for a public 

hearing. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2023–0406, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2023–0406 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023– 

0406. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023– 

0406, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operation are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except 

Federal holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact U.S. EPA, Attn. Matthew 

Witosky, Mail Drop: E143–05, 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, RTP, 

North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–2865; and email 

address: witosky.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Participation in virtual public 

hearing. To request a virtual public 

hearing, contact the public hearing team 

at (888) 372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. If 

requested, the hearing will be held via 

virtual platform on December 18, 2023. 

The hearing will convene at 11 a.m. 

Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude at 

3 p.m. ET. The EPA may close a session 

15 minutes after the last pre-registered 

speaker has testified if there are no 

additional speakers. The EPA will 

announce further details at https://

www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollutionoil-and-natural-gas-industry/actionsand-notices-about-oil-andnatural#neshap. 

If a public hearing is requested, the 

EPA will begin pre-registering speakers 

for the hearing no later than 1 business 

day after a request has been received. To 

register to speak at the virtual hearing, 

please use the online registration form 

available at https://www.epa.gov/ 

controlling-air-pollution-oil-andnatural-gas-industry/actions-andnotices-about-oil-and-natural#neshap or 

contact the public hearing team at (888) 

372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. The last 

day to pre-register to speak at the 

hearing will be December 13, 2023. 

Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post 

a general agenda that will list preregistered speakers at: https://

www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollutionoil-and-natural-gas-industry/actionsand-notices-about-oil-andnatural#neshap. 

The EPA will make every effort to 

follow the schedule as closely as 

possible on the day of the hearing; 

however, please plan for the hearings to 

run either ahead of schedule or behind 

schedule. 

Each commenter will have 4 minutes 

to provide oral testimony. The EPA 

encourages commenters to provide the 

EPA with a copy of their oral testimony 

electronically (via email) by emailing it 

to witosky.matthew@epa.gov. The EPA 

also recommends submitting the text of 

your oral testimony as written 

comments to the rulemaking docket. 

The EPA may ask clarifying questions 

during the oral presentations but will 

not respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as oral testimony 

and supporting information presented at 

the public hearing. 

Please note that any updates made to 

any aspect of the hearing will be posted 

online at https://www.epa.gov/ 

controlling-air-pollution-oil-andnatural-gas-industry/actions-andnotices-about-oil-andnatural#regactions. While the EPA 

expects the hearing to go forward as set 

forth above, please monitor our website 

or contact the public hearing team at 

(888) 372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov to 

determine if there are any updates. The 

EPA does not intend to publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing updates. 

If you require the services of a 

translator or special accommodation 

such as audio description, please preregister for the hearing with the public 

hearing team and describe your needs 

by December 8, 2023. The EPA may not 

be able to arrange accommodations 

without advanced notice. 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0406. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

https://www.regulations.gov/. Although 

listed, some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
83890 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. With the 

exception of such material, publicly 

available docket materials are available 

electronically in Regulations.gov. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023– 

0406. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at https:// 

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit electronically to https:// 

www.regulations.gov/ any information 

that you consider to be CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. This type of 

information should be submitted as 

discussed below. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the Web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

The https://www.regulations.gov/ 

website allows you to submit your 

comment anonymously, which means 

the EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 

send an email comment directly to the 

EPA without going through https://

www.regulations.gov/, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

digital storage media you submit. If the 

EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should not include 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through https://www.regulations.gov/. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on any digital 

storage media that you mail to the EPA, 

note the docket ID, mark the outside of 

the digital storage media as CBI, and 

identify electronically within the digital 

storage media the specific information 

that is claimed as CBI. In addition to 

one complete version of the comments 

that includes information claimed as 

CBI, you must submit a copy of the 

comments that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI directly to 

the public docket through the 

procedures outlined in Instructions 

above. If you submit any digital storage 

media that does not contain CBI, mark 

the outside of the digital storage media 

clearly that it does not contain CBI and 

note the docket ID. Information not 

marked as CBI will be included in the 

public docket and the EPA’s electronic 

public docket without prior notice. 

Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. 

Our preferred method to receive CBI 

is for it to be transmitted electronically 

using email attachments, File Transfer 

Protocol (FTP), or other online file 

sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, 

OneDrive, Google Drive). Electronic 

submissions must be transmitted 

directly to the Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (OAQPS) CBI 

Office at the email address oaqpscbi@

epa.gov, and as described above, should 

include clear CBI markings and note the 

docket ID. If assistance is needed with 

submitting large electronic files that 

exceed the file size limit for email 

attachments, and if you do not have 

your own file sharing service, please 

email oaqpscbi@epa.gov to request a file 

transfer link. If sending CBI information 

through the postal service, please send 

it to the following address: OAQPS 

Document Control Officer (C404–02), 

OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0406. The mailed 

CBI material should be double wrapped 

and clearly marked. Any CBI markings 

should not show through the outer 

envelope. 

Organization of this document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

II. Proposed Rule Summary and Rationale 

III. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations and Executive Order 14096: 

Revitalizing our Nation’s Commitment to 

Environmental Justice for All 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this action are shown in 

table 1 of this preamble. 

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION

Source category NAICS NAICS code 1

Industry ....................................................................................... 211111 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction. 

211112 Natural Gas Liquid Extraction. 

221210 Natural Gas Distribution. 

486110 Pipeline Distribution of Crude Oil. 

486210 Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83891 

1The court’s reasoning in NRDC focuses on civil 

judicial actions. The court noted that ‘‘EPA’s ability 

to determine whether penalties should be assessed 

for CAA violations extends only to administrative 

penalties, not to civil penalties imposed by a 

court.’’ Id. 

2The EPA notes that in 2012, concurrent with the 

review of 40 CFR part 63, subparts HH and HHH, 

the EPA promulgated New Source Performance 

Standards for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities, 

40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO (‘‘NSPS OOOO’’), 

which also included an affirmative defense. See 77 

FR 49557. In a subsequent rulemaking following the 

NRDC decision, the EPA removed the affirmative 

defense provision from NSPS OOOO. 79 FR 79018 

(Dec. 31, 2014). 

3Although the NRDC case does not address the 

EPA’s authority to establish an affirmative defense 

to penalties that are available in administrative 

enforcement actions, we are not including such an 

affirmative defense in the proposed rule. As 

explained above, such an affirmative defense is not 

necessary. Moreover, assessment of penalties for 

violations caused by malfunctions in administrative 

proceedings and judicial proceedings should be 

consistent. Cf. CAA section 113(e) (requiring both 

the Administrator and the court to take specified 

criteria into account when assessing penalties). 

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION—Continued 

Source category NAICS NAICS code 1

Federal Government ................................................................... ........................ Not affected. 

State/Local/Tribal Government ................................................... ........................ Not affected. 

1 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. To determine 

whether your facility would be 

regulated by this action, you should 

examine the applicability criteria in the 

regulations. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, contact the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

II. Proposed Rule Summary and 

Rationale 

In 1998 the EPA promulgated 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for 

the Oil and Natural Gas Production 

Facility and Natural Gas Transmission 

and Storage Facility Source Categories, 

40 CFR part 63, subparts HH and HHH. 

64 FR 32610 (June 17, 1999) (‘‘Oil and 

Gas NESHAP’’). In 2012, the EPA 

amended the Oil and Gas NESHAP. 77 

FR 49490 (August 16, 2012). The 2012 

amendments included provisions 

allowing owners and operators to assert 

an affirmative defense to civil penalties 

for violations caused by malfunctions. 

See 40 CFR 63.762 and 63.1672. 

Malfunctions are a sudden, infrequent, 

and not reasonably preventable failure 

of air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner. See 40 CFR 63.2. As defined in 

40 CFR part 63, subparts HH and HHH, 

‘‘affirmative defense’’ means, ‘‘in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding.’’ See 40 

CFR 63.761 and 63.1271. The EPA 

established an affirmative defense in 40 

CFR part 63, subparts HH and HHH in 

an effort to create a system that 

incorporates some flexibility, 

recognizing that there is a tension, 

inherent in many types of air 

regulations, to ensure adequate 

compliance while simultaneously 

recognizing that despite the most 

diligent of efforts, emission standards 

may be violated under circumstances 

entirely beyond the control of the source 

(77 FR 49508). 

Although the EPA recognized at the 

time that its case-by-case enforcement 

discretion provides sufficient flexibility 

in these circumstances, it included the 

affirmative defense to provide a more 

formalized approach and more 

regulatory clarity. Id. at 49508–9. See 

also, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 

F.2d 1011, 1057–58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) 

(holding that an informal case-by-case 

enforcement discretion approach is 

adequate); but see Marathon Oil Co. v. 

EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272–73 (9th Cir. 

1977) (requiring a more formalized 

approach to consideration of ‘‘upsets 

beyond the control of the permit 

holder’’). Under the EPA’s regulatory 

affirmative defense provisions, if a 

source could demonstrate in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding that it had 

met the requirements of the affirmative 

defense in the regulation, civil penalties 

would not be assessed. 

In 2014, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) vacated the 

affirmative defense in one of the EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations. Natural 

Resource Defense Council (NRDC) v. 

EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir., 2014) 

(vacating affirmative defense provisions 

in CAA section 112 rule establishing 

emission standards for Portland cement 

kilns) (NRDC). The court found that the 

EPA lacked authority to establish an 

affirmative defense for private civil suits 

and held that under the CAA, the 

authority to determine civil penalty 

amounts in such cases lies exclusively 

with the courts, not the EPA. 

Specifically, the court found: ‘‘As the 

language of the statute makes clear, the 

courts determine, on a case-by-case 

basis, whether civil penalties are 

‘appropriate.’ ’’ Id. at 1063 (‘‘[U]nder 

this statute, deciding whether penalties 

are ‘appropriate’ in a given private civil 

suit is a job for the courts, not EPA.’’).1

In light of the NRDC decision 

mentioned above, the EPA is proposing 

to remove the affirmative defense 

provisions from the Oil and Gas 

NESHAP. These provisions imply legal 

authority that the D.C. Circuit Court has 

stated that the EPA does not have.2 As 

explained above, if a source is unable to 

comply with emissions standards as a 

result of a malfunction, the EPA may 

use its case-by-case enforcement 

discretion to provide flexibility, as 

appropriate. Further, as the D.C. Circuit 

recognized, in a citizen enforcement 

action brought under CAA section 

304(a), the court has the discretion to 

consider any defense raised and 

determine whether penalties are 

appropriate. Cf. NRDC, 749 F.3d at 1064 

(arguments that violation was caused by 

unavoidable technology failure can be 

made to the courts in future civil cases 

when the issue arises). The same is true 

for the presiding officer in EPA 

administrative enforcement actions.3

III. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

Sources subject to subparts HH and 

HHH under 40 CFR part 63 of the CAA 

as amended in 1990, section 112. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

There are no air quality impacts 

associated with this action. The 

affirmative defense provisions did not 

affect the stringency of the standards in 

40 CFR part 63, subparts HH or HHH. 

The removal of the provisions does not 

have a material impact on the obligation 

for sources to comply with current 

existing standards, or the ability of 

Federal or State agencies to enforce 

standards. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
83892 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

There are no cost impacts associated 

with this action. The affirmative defense 

provisions did not affect the stringency 

of the standards in 40 CFR part 63, 

subparts HH or HHH. The removal of 

the provisions does not have a material 

impact on the obligation for sources to 

comply with current existing standards, 

or the ability of Federal or State 

agencies to enforce standards. The EPA 

estimated a small administrative burden 

to report deviations from standards as a 

result of malfunctions that included the 

option for an owner or operator to offer 

an affirmative defense. The removal of 

the affirmative defense provisions does 

not affect that burden because sources 

will still be required to report 

malfunctions that result in a failure to 

meet the standards. Since the option to 

invoke an affirmative defense was 

voluntary, there may be a negligible cost 

savings for reporting malfunctions by 

removing these provisions. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

There are no economic impacts 

associated with this action. The 

affirmative defense provisions did not 

affect the stringency of the standards in 

40 CFR part 63, subparts HH or HHH. 

The removal of the provisions does not 

have a material impact on the obligation 

for sources to comply with current 

existing standards, or the ability of 

Federal or State agencies to enforce 

standards. The EPA estimated a small 

administrative burden to report 

deviations from standards as a result of 

malfunctions that included the option 

for an owner or operator to offer an 

affirmative defense. The removal of the 

affirmative defense provisions does not 

affect that burden because sources will 

still be required to report malfunctions 

that could have resulted in a failure to 

meet the standards. Since the option to 

invoke an affirmative defense was 

voluntary, there may be a negligible cost 

savings for reporting malfunctions by 

removing these provisions. 

E. What are the benefits? 

There are no environmental benefits 

associated with this action. The 

affirmative defense provisions did not 

affect the stringency of the standards in 

40 CFR part 63, subparts HH or HHH. 

The removal of the provisions does not 

have a material impact on the obligation 

for sources to comply with current 

existing standards, or the ability of 

Federal or State agencies to enforce 

standards. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094, and was 

therefore not subject to a requirement 

for review under Executive Order 

12866. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. OMB has previously approved the 

information collection activities 

contained in the existing regulations 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0417. The removal of provisions 

for affirmative defense does not change 

any mandatory recordkeeping, 

reporting, or other activity previously 

established under prior final rules. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. There are no economic 

impacts associated with this action. The 

affirmative defense provisions did not 

affect the stringency of the standards in 

40 CFR part 63, subparts HH or HHH. 

The removal of the provisions does not 

have a material impact on the obligation 

for sources to comply with current 

existing standards, or the ability of 

Federal or State agencies to enforce 

standards. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any State, local or 

Tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on Tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive order. Therefore, this action is 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

Since this action does not concern 

human health, the EPA’s Policy on 

Children’s Health also does not apply. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations and Executive 

Order 14096: Revitalizing our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not concern human health or 

environmental conditions and therefore 

cannot be evaluated with respect to 

potentially disproportionate and 

adverse effects on people of color, lowincome populations and/or Indigenous 

peoples. The removal of the provisions 

does not have a material impact on the 

obligation for sources to comply with 

current existing standards, or the ability 

of Federal or State agencies to enforce 

standards. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 83893 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to amend title 

40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) as follows: 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart HH—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

From Oil and Natural Gas Production 

Facilities 

■ 2. Section 63.760 is amended by 

adding paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 63.760 Applicability and designation of 

affected source. 

* * * * * 

(i) Emissions standards in this subpart 

apply at all times. 

§ 63.761 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 63.761 is amended by 

removing the definition ‘‘Affirmative 

defense’’. 

§ 63.762 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 4. Section 63.762 is removed and 

reserved. 

Subpart HHH—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

From Natural Gas Transmission and 

Storage Facilities 

■ 5. Section 63.1270 is amended by 

adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1270 Applicability and designation of 

affected source. 

* * * * * 

(g) Emissions standards in this 

subpart apply at all times. 

§ 63.1271 [Amended] 

■ 6. Section 63.1271 is amended by 

removing the definition ‘‘Affirmative 

defense’’. 

§ 63.1272 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 7. Section 63.1272 is removed and 

reserved. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26119 Filed 11–30–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[231121–0275; RTID 0648–XD495] 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab 

Fishery; 2024–2027 Atlantic Deep-Sea 

Red Crab Specifications 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed specifications; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing 

specifications for the 2024 Atlantic 

deep-sea red crab fishery, including an 

annual catch limit and total allowable 

landings limit, and projecting quotas for 

the 2025–2027 Atlantic deep-sea red 

crab fishery. The proposed action is 

intended to establish the allowable 2024 

harvest levels, consistent with the 

Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery 

Management Plan. This action is 

necessary to establish allowable red crab 

harvest levels that will prevent 

overfishing. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 2, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2023–0140, by the following 

method: 

Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. 

1. Go to https://www.regulations.gov, 

and enter ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2023–0140’’ 

in the Search box; 

2. Click the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, 

complete the required fields; and 

3. Enter or attach your comments. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personally 

identifiable information (e.g., name, 

address, etc.), confidential business 

information, or otherwise sensitive 

information submitted voluntarily by 

the sender will be publicly accessible. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in the required 

fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

Copies of the specifications 

document, including the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act Analysis, and other 

supporting documents for the 

specifications, are available from Dr. 

Catherine O’Keefe, Executive Director, 

New England Fishery Management 

Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, 

Newburyport, MA 01950 or at https:// 

www.nefmc.org/management-plans/redcrab. The specifications document is 

also accessible via the internet 

at:https:// 

www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Allison Murphy, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

(978) 281–9122. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Atlantic deep-sea red crab fishery 

is managed by the New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council). The 

Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) includes a 

specification process that requires the 

Council to recommend an acceptable 

biological catch (ABC), an annual catch 

limit (ACL), and total allowable 

landings (TAL) every four years. The 

Council’s Scientific and Statistical 

Committee (SSC) provides a 

recommendation to the Council for the 

ABC. The Council makes a 

recommendation to NMFS that cannot 

exceed the ABC recommendation made 

by the SSC. 

The FMP was implemented in 2002 

and was originally managed under a 

target total allowable catch (TAC) and 

days-at-sea (DAS) system that allocated 

DAS equally across the small fleet of 

limited access permitted vessels. 

Amendment 3 to the FMP removed a 

trip limit restriction, and replaced the 

target TAC and DAS allocation with a 

catch-limit structure consistent with the 

ACL and accountability measure 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act. Under Amendment 3 (76 FR 60379; 

September 29, 2011), the 2011–2013 red 

crab specifications were set with an 

ABC equal to the long-term average 

landings of the directed red crab fishery 

(3.91 million pounds or 1,775 metric 

tons (mt)). These specifications were 

continued for fishing years 2014–2016 

(79 FR 24356; April 30, 2014) and 2017– 

2019 (82 FR 11322, February 22, 2017; 

83 FR 4849, February 2, 2018; 83 FR 

66161, December 26, 2018). 

Specifications were increased to 2,000 

mt for fishing years 2020 through 2023 

(85 FR 20615, April 14, 2020; 86 FR 

16077, March 26, 2021; 87 FR 3697, 

January 25, 2022; 88 FR 788, January 5, 

2023). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1